Post your kit

[mantianak]

Sigma lenses are great. They're so much cheaper than the main branded lenses. While their optical quality is good they often don't meet the focusing speed of the main brands. But for the price you rally can't complain. Just wish they still made them for Olympus these days

[coolcat]

Originally Posted by bongi69

I got my 400D with a Dixons voucher I won, the Sigma lens was as explained above a huge bargain as was my speed light (very similar story to the lens), both my 35mm bodies and the FD lenses cost less than £50. Most I have spent of my own earned cash was on a battery grip. Trust me money is something I do not have but I do take pride in my kit and do like to share with like minded people. Any of my posts above are not meant to be Showing off in anyway apologies if they seem that way. But I do agree with your sentiment of great kit does not a great photo make. I've gotten very good shots on my Galaxy S2

Back on topic, add a 50mm f1.8 EF lens to my kit. Got it yesterday for my birthday

Nice Birthday present
Nobody thinks for one moment you were boasting about your equipment, ohh err
You were as everyone else was simply replying to the op post as to what you use for your hobby.
It's not for anyone to judge how much or how little you've spent on your camera equipment.
In fact I would go as far as saying its none of their/our business.
It's your money that you have worked for and how you choose to spend it is yours and your family's business.
As you, I can't afford all I would like in camera equipment so we all have to budget and save up for things, why that makes it a waste of money I really don't know
Others go on holidays, buy new cars, expensive clothes etc but that is up to them as well.
Some people can't afford any of these things and that is sad for their circumstances but this thread wasn't started as a political thread just an interest in what people use for their hobby
Anyhow, anyone care to lend me the money for a 1Dx body and a 400mm 2.8 prime.......No, oh well worth an ask
Don't forget to post some pictures up with your new Lens.
I should think that will make for some creamy bokah

[coolcat]

Originally Posted by mantianak

Sigma lenses are great. They're so much cheaper than the main branded lenses. While their optical quality is good they often don't meet the focusing speed of the main brands. But for the price you rally can't complain. Just wish they still made them for Olympus these days

Its for that very reason I use Sigma glass
Much as I can dream of affording those lovely white Canon L lenses I can't.
The 2.8 Sigma lenses aren't slouches at focusing though and I'm plenty happy with them
I used to have the Sigma 150-500 which had great reach but was a bit slow at the long end (F6.3 if I remember) and a wee bit soft.
The 120-300 F2.8 on the other hand is tack sharp and very fast to focus.
Takes a teleconvertor well and is still faster than the 500.
The downside is its a heavy beast and really requires the Monopod to get the best out of it.
'Tis why I picked up a secondhand 70-200 Sigma that will still give me 400mm with a 2x convertor and save my arms some weight lifting
I never knew they stopped making them in Olympus mounts, seems a bit silly to me!

[kjw123]

Originally Posted by coolcat

The lens envy wasn't aimed at you, it was a joke!
Having studied photography at college doing 3d graphic design ' ok, it was a long, long time ago' I'm well aware that equipment a good photographer doesn't make.......But, your statement was it was silly to discuss what's in your bag as if no one should care!
This is the photography section of this forum so of course people may have an interest in what others use to take photos with.
If it were a Golf section for example I'm sure people would want to know what clubs they use !
Again, as stated I'm interested as someone who knows a reasonable amount about photography, what others are using to help them get 'THE SHOT'
Not least as having all the details of how people achieve a photo, meaning exif data, composition, time of day and equipment used may help someone achieve something similar
So the question remains, if your not interested in what people are using it doesn't mean others aren't.
Obviously the op was interested or he wouldn't have started the thread

you jumped on me about me saying "ths is silly" without understanding my thoughts behind it all the guy who started the original thread wanted people to list their equipment then someone else comments show us pictures (of equipment).....well to me that is silly because as you've alraeady agreed good equipment does not make a good picture.
Now if the thread was started with show us your pictures and tell us how you achieved your results and what equipment you used, then that is fine. No problem. But to start a thread with a list of equipment and then ask what have you got to me is silly and is only like bragging which I have no interest in.

Having been an avid photographer myself including making my living from videography for the last 6 years of my working life I fully understand the results you can get with good equipment as opposed to bad but I've also met dozens of photographers with top of the range gear still taking pictures that my old olympus trip would have handled better. Equipment means nothing it does nothing it's the skill and knowledge that the photographer has that makes the shot. Equipment only helps.

[coolcat]

Originally Posted by kjw123

you jumped on me about me saying "ths is silly" without understanding my thoughts behind it all the guy who started the original thread wanted people to list their equipment then someone else comments show us pictures (of equipment).....well to me that is silly because as you've alraeady agreed good equipment does not make a good picture.
Now if the thread was started with show us your pictures and tell us how you achieved your results and what equipment you used, then that is fine. No problem. But to start a thread with a list of equipment and then ask what have you got to me is silly and is only like bragging which I have no interest in.

Having been an avid photographer myself including making my living from videography for the last 6 years of my working life I fully understand the results you can get with good equipment as opposed to bad but I've also met dozens of photographers with top of the range gear still taking pictures that my old olympus trip would have handled better. Equipment means nothing it does nothing it's the skill and knowledge that the photographer has that makes the shot. Equipment only helps.

I follow what you're saying........But, if not interested in the thread then why make a comment knocking those that have
Just asking
Nobody ever said ' show us what you have in your kit bag that makes you the next Henri Cartier-Bresson.
It was just asking the question ' what do you use ' not does it make you a pro tog
Anyhow, it looks like we're reading into this differently so I shall agree to disagree

[Gate Keeper]

Originally Posted by deanbmx

I'm interested as to what everyone elses kit contains.

Body:- Nikon D2H
Lens 1) Sigma 28-105mm
Lens 2) Sigma 170-500mm

Just waiting on a couple of things to be delivered.

Black rapid RS-4 sling strap
Red Snapper midway bag
Yongnuo YN 460II

I can't see anything silly in the above either....only teasing

What I do find interesting is when posters write up the data associated with the photographs. I will wait until I get back to the UK to write what stuff I have as it is a job to remember all of the equipment. I tend to swing both ways....Canon and Nikon. The Minolta's and Pentax's I have, I keep as I just can't bear to chuck them. What is also interesting is how many esteemed members work in the film and TV/photography for a living, and who have not yet come forward. Maybe they will. Then we have the guys who also have produced some excellent photos and are from the same fraternity as myself: The Amateur

I haven't been on the forum of late or had the time to edit the photos I took on safari last month in Kenya, as I have been busy in ZA with the house rebuild and farm security.
Jeff, you showed me the big lens at Halfway House. If you recall, I remarked how heavy it felt. Are all big lenses the same? The Canon SX40HS is a nice little package and is a lightweight in comparison, but lacks the high definition which you are able to get to with your lens at max zoom. It is refreshing to see that some still do not use digital and get the same or even better results.

[coolcat]

Originally Posted by Gate Keeper

I can't see anything silly in the above either....only teasing

What I do find interesting is when posters write up the data associated with the photographs. I will wait until I get back to the UK to write what stuff I have as it is a job to remember all of the equipment. I tend to swing both ways....Canon and Nikon. The Minolta's and Pentax's I have, I keep as I just can't bear to chuck them. What is also interesting is how many esteemed members work in the film and TV/photography for a living, and who have not yet come forward. Maybe they will. Then we have the guys who also have produced some excellent photos and are from the same fraternity as myself: The Amateur

I haven't been on the forum of late or had the time to edit the photos I took on safari last month in Kenya, as I have been busy in ZA with the house rebuild and farm security.
Jeff, you showed me the big lens at Halfway House. If you recall, I remarked how heavy it felt. Are all big lenses the same? The Canon SX40HS is a nice little package and is a lightweight in comparison, but lacks the high definition which you are able to get to with your lens at max zoom. It is refreshing to see that some still do not use digital and get the same or even better results.

Hi Phil,
I'm afraid so, in general yes the constant fast aperture lenses tend to be on the heavy side
Lot of glass inside those puppy's
If you don't need anything as fast then they get smaller and lighter 'which is nice' but don't offer quite the same level of optical prowess or aren't able to work as well in lower light situations!
It's all about compromise and what you are using the lens for
As has been said, they're are only tools of the trade to help you obtain what you wish to achieve photographically
If lumping a load of heavy gear around means you leaving it at home because its to much to carry then its not going to further your photographic aspirations.
If however it allows you to get creative and bag the photos you want then its worth all the effort
With my type of photography a slow telephoto just isn't practical for panning, especially in low light situations where I can't get the lens wide open at the long end.
My telephoto lens would be useless for wide angle vistas and macro work though
For general photography a mid range wide to telephoto kit lens is more than enough to get great pleasing photos with of course

[Gate Keeper]

Thanks Jeff I agree with everything you have said. When I am out in the bush some of the other people I see taking photos have really big expensive looking lenses. Then I get my little wee Canon out and can't help how small and insignificant it feels compared to the big guys. But then as others have implied, it is quality and not size

Getting back to this thread, I find it interesting to see what else everyone has

[coolcat]

Originally Posted by Gate Keeper

But then as others have implied, it is quality and not size

Getting back to this thread, I find it interesting to see what else everyone has

Me too, its like going through your ladies underwear draw

[kjw123]

Originally Posted by coolcat

I follow what you're saying........But, if not interested in the thread then why make a comment knocking those that have
Just asking
Nobody ever said ' show us what you have in your kit bag that makes you the next Henri Cartier-Bresson.
It was just asking the question ' what do you use ' not does it make you a pro tog
Anyhow, it looks like we're reading into this differently so I shall agree to disagree

Re read my original thread Jeff I said "This is silly who cares what kit anyone has?" I never said "This is silly Who cares what kit anyone used?" There's the difference.....so show me the results THEN tell me how and with what.
I'll Agree that some people may want to see a list of someone's kit but why? What does that tell you about their abillity as a photographer IMHO it tells you nothing.....it's just like looking at a pile of kit listed in a camera mag....it's just kit and for me that's silly. But hey! ho! whatever floats your boat....so be it.
Including rummaging through a womens underwear draw.

I believe You have a Canon 7D with a couple of nice lenses and some bits and bobs....total value lets say £1800 maybe £2000 That's good fine, but if I were to tell you that's only half the value of just one of my video camera's (of which I have four + four manfrotto tripods, a couple of monopods and about £3k's worth of senhieser wireles microphone equipment also an assortment of dolly's and jibs.) then that would be bragging a "little lens envy" as you so rightly put it.

So I'll also agree to disagree.